Sam Paul v. Romanzo Drown. Mary Paul v. Romanzo Drown

• Decision Date: 07 January 1937
• Citation: 189 A. 144,108 Vt. 458
• Parties: SAM PAUL v. ROMANZO DROWN. MARY PAUL v. ROMANZO DROWN
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

189 A. 144

108 Vt. 458

SAM PAUL v. ROMANZO DROWN.

MARY PAUL v. ROMANZO DROWN

Supreme Court of Vermont

January 7, 1937

November Term, 1936.

Effect of Offer of Improper Evidence---When Error---Irreparable Prejudice Caused in Some Instances---Automobiles---Evidence of Arrest of Operator of Vehicle in Which Plaintiff Was Passenger Held Inadmissible---Offer to Show Defendant Not Arrested Held Prejudicial---Error in Prejudicial Offer Held Not Cured by Charge---Evidence as to Defendant's Injuries Held Admissible---Instruction as to Assumptions Defendant Entitled to Make Held Proper---Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Verdict as Being Unsupported by Evidence Held Properly Overruled---Grounds of Motion to Set Aside Verdict as Being Against Evidence and Against Weight of Evidence Same in Meaning and Addressed to Discretion of Trial Court---Withholding of Discretion by Trial Court Error---Remand for Correction of Errors Subsequent to Verdict---Unnecessary to Consider Motion for New Trial When Cause Remanded.

1. An offer of improper evidence does not always require a reversal, for much depends upon the character and importance of the offered evidence and the good or bad faith of counsel, and each case must be judged by its own circumstances.

2. If incompetent and immaterial testimony is offered, with knowledge of its character, and for the purpose of prejudicing the jury, it is error to permit the offer to stand unrebuked, and in the allowance of an exception is an implied ruling that the offer was proper.

3. In some instances, irreparable prejudice may be caused by an offer of incompetent and immaterial testimony before the court can intervene, so that any attempt by the court to remove it from the case is futile.

4. In action to recover for personal injuries arising out of motor vehicle accident, evidence offered in course of cross-examination of operator of truck in which plaintiff was passenger that he had been arrested for careless and negligent driving in connection with the accident and that the prosecution was still pending, held properly excluded since it was not admissible to show that defendant, the operator of the other vehicle involved, was not negligent or that negligence of the witness was the proximate cause of the accident, nor admissible in impeachment of the witness because there had been no conviction.

5. In such action, where question asked on cross-examination of operator of truck in which plaintiff was riding, about the fact that he had been arrested for careless and negligent driving in connection with the accident, and was awaiting trial, was excluded, and immediately thereafter offer was made to show that defendant had not been arrested and exception taken to exclusion of the testimony, making of such offer held prejudicial and to require reversal.

6. In such circumstances, error held not cured by fact that court charged that negligence of operator of truck in which plaintiff was passenger was not imputable to him.

7. In action to recover for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident, admission of testimony of defendant in regard to the nature of his injuries, held without error since the evidence had some bearing upon the force of the impact, and, consequently, upon the speed of the automobile involved, and since it was as favorable to the plaintiff as to the defendant.

8. In such action, instruction to jury that defendant had right to assume that person or vehicle approaching him up the hill would keep to right of center of road and that operator of car making turn to left across road would make turn with due care, come even with center of intersection before turning, and see that the way was clear, excepted to on ground that there was no evidence that truck in which plaintiff was passenger was not at all times on its own side of road except when it turned to enter side road, held without error, because there was some evidence that accident occurred at point before truck reached the intersection and that it was then to left of center, and failure of court to qualify instruction in certain respects pointed out in brief held not for consideration because not stated below as ground for exception.

9. In such action, plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict as being against the law, apparently treated as meaning unsupported by the evidence, held properly overruled, since there was evidence which, taken in the most favorable light for the defendant, tended to support the verdict.

10. Grounds of motion to set aside verdict that it was against the evidence and against the weight of the evidence mean the same thing; a motion on these grounds is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the ruling thereon can be reversed only when it is made to appear that there has been an abuse of discretion.

11. The trial court may not withhold its discretion when called upon to exercise it, and it is error for the trial court to rule as a matter of law upon a question which requires discretionary action like a motion to set aside a verdict on the ground that it is against the evidence or against the weight of the evidence.

12. If judgment were reversed only for failure of trial court to exercise its discretion in passing upon a motion to set aside a verdict as being against the evidence or against the weight of the evidence, the cause would be remanded only for the correction of errors subsequent to the rendition of the verdict.

13. Where cause was remanded on account of trial errors, held it was unnecessary to consider exception to denial of motion for new trial based upon newly discovered evidence.

ACTIONS OF TORT to recover for personal injuries received in a motor vehicle accident. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury in Orleans municipal court, A. E. Bishop, Municipal Judge, presiding. Verdict and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiffs excepted. The two cases were tried together and entered as one case in the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court. The opinion states the case.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Porter, Witters & Longmoore for the plaintiff.

Hubert S. Pierce for the defendant.

Present: POWERS, C. J., SLACK, MOULTON and SHERBURNE, JJ., and SHERMAN, Supr. J.

OPINION

MOULTON

These two cases were tried together below, and were entered as one case in the office of the clerk of this Court.

About two o'clock in the morning of October 28, 1935, the plaintiffs, along with nine others, were returning from a dance in a truck driven by Marcou. At, or near, the crest of a hill, the latter turned to the left to enter a side road leading off at a right angle from the main highway, and as he did so the automobile driven by the defendant, coming in the opposite direction, collided with the truck, and the plaintiffs received the injuries for which they seek redress in this action. There was no claim that they were contributorily negligent, or that any negligence of Marcou was imputable to them. The trial below was by jury with verdicts for the defendant, and the cause is here upon the plaintiffs' exceptions.

On the cross-examination of Marcou, he was asked: "Were you brought into court by the State for careless and negligent driving in connection with that accident?" and answered, "Yes." He was then asked: "Your case has not yet been tried?" The offer was to show that the witness had been arrested and the case was still pending, and the question was excluded. Counsel for defendant then said: "And we offer to show that Mr. Drown was not arrested--." This was excluded and an exception was taken to the making of the offer.

An offer of improper evidence does not always require a reversal, for much depends upon the character and importance of the offered evidence and the good or bad faith of counsel and each case must be judged on its own circumstances. Niebyski v. Welcome, 93 Vt. 418, 422, 423, 108 A. 341, 343; State v. Felch, 92 Vt. 477, 487, 105 A. 23; Fraser v. Blanchard and Crowley, 83 Vt. 136, 145, 73 A. 995, 75 A. 797; Rudd v. Rounds, 64 Vt. 432, 441, 25 A. 438. But if incompetent and immaterial testimony is offered, with knowledge of its character, and for the purpose of prejudicing the jury, it is error to permit the offer to stand unrebuked (Shores v. Simanton, 99 Vt....